What About Contradictions in the Bible?
Does the presence of apparent differences in Gospel accounts undermine their reliability?
Why it matters
The "Bible contradicts itself" objection is widely repeated. In fact, most alleged contradictions are either resolved by careful reading, fit the genre conventions of ancient biography, or are minor surface differences consistent with independent testimony. Paradoxically, perfect agreement across four Gospels would be suspicious.
The main case
Three categories of "contradictions": (1) Complementary details. John adds what Mark omits; not a contradiction. Mark's shorter account is compressed, John's is more thematic — both are selective. (2) Genre conventions. 's Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? shows Greco-Roman biographies routinely rearranged chronology, conflated events, and used generic time markers. This is authorial convention, not error. (3) Minor differences in witness testimony. How many women at the tomb? How many angels? Sherwin-White and other classical historians note that multiple independent witnesses who agree perfectly are suspicious; minor variations across accounts are the signature of independent testimony. (4) A small number of harder cases remain open to responsible interpretation. None threaten the core claims.
Claim · Evidence · Objection · Response
1.Most alleged contradictions are surface differences reflecting genre or perspective.
Majority viewEvidence
- 's work demonstrates Greco-Roman biographical conventions at work in the Gospels.
- Matthew's telescoped chronology and Mark's vivid detail are different editorial strategies.
- Comparable apparent contradictions appear in every multiple-source ancient account.
- Courtroom testimony regularly shows minor variations across witnesses to the same event.
Strongest objection
"The harmonizations are apologetic gymnastics."
Response
Some harmonizations are strained. Others are straightforward. Each case should be evaluated on its merits. The category error is concluding that ANY difference is a contradiction, which would rule out all ancient history.
- The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach — Michael Licona (2010)scholarlyFind on Amazon
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — Richard Bauckham (2006 (rev. 2017))scholarlyFind on Amazon
2.Independent testimony produces variations, not contradictions.
Majority viewEvidence
- Sherwin-White's classical historiography: minor variations are expected in independent accounts.
- Bauckham: the Gospel variations fit eyewitness patterns better than committee editing.
- Legal scholars () note the Gospel variations match genuine testimony, not collusion.
Strongest objection
"Collusion would produce harmony; independence produces contradiction."
Response
Collusion produces suspicious harmony. Independent testimony produces variations WITHIN overall agreement — exactly what the Gospels display.
- Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament — A.N. Sherwin-White (1963)scholarlyFind on Amazon
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — Richard Bauckham (2006 (rev. 2017))scholarlyFind on Amazon
- The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach — Michael Licona (2010)scholarlyFind on Amazon
What scholars debate
The spectrum runs from strict inerrantists (who treat every difference as apparent, not real) to skeptics (who count contradictions aggressively). Most NT scholars work in the middle: the Gospels are historically reliable ancient biographies, not modern news reports.
Reflection
- 1.Which alleged contradiction have you found most troubling?
- 2.How do you handle a genuine tension you cannot fully resolve?
- 3.What is the difference between a contradiction and a complementary detail?
Key sources
- The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach — Michael Licona (2010)scholarlyFind on Amazon
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — Richard Bauckham (2006 (rev. 2017))scholarlyFind on Amazon
- Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament — A.N. Sherwin-White (1963)scholarlyFind on Amazon
Featured thinkers
Historian specializing in the resurrection, ancient biography, and Greco-Roman historiography.
One of the most prolific New Testament historians of his generation. His 800-page Resurrection of the Son of God situates the resurrection within Second Temple Jewish expectations and mounts a historical case that the bodily resurrection is the best explanation.
Pass it on
Share this lesson
One honest argument can change a conversation. Send it to a friend, a skeptic, or your small group.
Want a hi-res image card instead? Build a shareable evidence card sized for X or Instagram Stories.